I can remember the hysteria back then, this place was insane with drama queens... Thanks for the memories...
- Makita

It still is.

What did my post have to do with Benning or the value of a 2nd round pick? I was merely stating that the current system of placing value on later picks is fairly meaningless.
- CanuckDon

To me you were validating not picking in the second round, which is silly, just because you don't always hit on the second round pick doesn't mean you shouldn't use the pick.

From here on in I think it's extremely important for Benning and company to use their 1-2-3 round picks and acquire more if possible.

Games played is really misleading, I love some studies on draft picks in round 2 and beyond and what the odds are of finding an 'impact' player (which might mean different things to different people) not just a player that happens to play X amount of games in the NHL
- DariusKnight

Games played is used because it actually not misleading. It is a well defined event not easily swayed by luck or other noise.

"Impact" is misleading because that is not a well defined variable. Is player A more impactful because he plays Defense and hits, or scores a lot of goals but doesn't backcheck?

If NHL coachs put you in 100 or more games it is a pretty valid assumption that the player is doing more good than bad or at the very least have the potential to. Injuries, Development and other factors all go into why a player may not reach that potential but getting in 100 games means that smart hockey people have continued to give that player a chance.

I can remember the hysteria back then, this place was insane with drama queens... Thanks for the memories...
- Makita

Up 3 games to 1 and Bertuzzi spouts off….(frank) I don't know why I cheer for this team anymore

If Benning signs Hudler where does he fit, second line with Sutter? Actually that may be a good fit considering he can pass the puck.

Why isn't Juolevi signed yet?
- LeftCoaster

Why isn't Matthews signed? is he going back to Switzerland?

To me you were validating not picking in the second round, which is silly, just because you don't always hit on the second round pick doesn't mean you shouldn't use the pick.

From here on in I think it's extremely important for Benning and company to use their 1-2-3 round picks and acquire more if possible.
- LeftCoaster

That wasn't my point at all. but interpret how you choose

Why isn't Matthews signed? is he going back to Switzerland?
- A_SteamingLombardi

One could only hope

Why isn't Matthews signed? is he going back to Switzerland?
- A_SteamingLombardi

Yes I heard in an interview that he wants to play professional hockey.

That wasn't my point at all. but interpret how you choose
- CanuckDon

Ok…..my apologies.

My previous post

That is a replacement level player...if you play a 100 NHL games you can be acquired for free in the summer ie. Cracknell. A more interesting study would be what % are impact players. The definition could be 100 goals for a forward or 400 games played for a defensemen. Essentially stating that 30% of second round picks are a replacement level player or better is fairly meaningless.

See bolded. I clearly state that they are replacement level or better. This post has nothing to do with Benning or the value of a 2nd round pick
I am saying that I don't like the "100 game or more" qualifier for the value of a draft pick. It doesn't provide meaningful information.
- CanuckDon

It does provide meaningful information, I just don't think you can see it or willfully choose not to.

By saying that these players are availible for free a la Cracknell, you are demonstrating that you don't understand that he is the baseline.

And I agree this post has nothing to do with Benning, so why are you bringing him up? Just so we are clear it has nothing to do with Mathews or the east coast media bias either.

To me you were validating not picking in the second round, which is silly, just because you don't always hit on the second round pick doesn't mean you shouldn't use the pick.

From here on in I think it's extremely important for Benning and company to use their 1-2-3 round picks and acquire more if possible.
- LeftCoaster

There is a pretty impressive list of 2nd rounders that became impact players. The draft is still a crap shoot but still I agree. Like I said earlier, I don't see Benning trading many picks going forward.

Yes I heard in an interview that he wants to play professional hockey.
- fiveandagame

It does provide meaningful information, I just don't think you can see it or willfully choose not to.

By saying that these players are availible for free a la Cracknell, you are demonstrating that you don't understand that he is the baseline.

And I agree this post has nothing to do with Benning, so why are you bringing him up? Just so we are clear it has nothing to do with Mathews or the east coast media bias either.
- belcherbd

I said "replacement level or better."

How am I not understanding that this is the baseline? Should I use a larger font? My only point is I would like to know what % of players picked in rounds 2-7 are "impact players." You seem to think 100 games is a good indicator and I disagree. I have read your explanation and I still disagree

Good picks of Patty almost all in the late rounds.

Garry Valk 6th round 1987
Trevor Linden 2nd overall 1988
Gino Odjick 5th round 1990
Jiri Slegr 2nd round 1990
Micheal Peca 2nd round 1992
Adrain Aucoin 5th round 1992
Scott Walker 5th round 1993
Mathias Öhlund 13th overall
Brent Sopel 6th round 1995
Brad Ference 10th overall
Matt Cooke 6th round 1997

Other than these players Leftcoaster is right the mighty Quinn was not so mighty at drafting. The list of crap shoots he picked in the 1st round alone is enough to gag a maggot. Its hard to look at with some of the players that went who he should have picked.

Trading however he was the man. Loved that guy.

I said "replacement level or better."

How am I not understanding that this is the baseline? Should I use a larger font? My only point is I would like to know what % of players picked in rounds 2-7 are "impact players." You seem to think 100 games is a good indicator and I disagree. I have read your explanation and I still disagree
- CanuckDon

Because you work at Walmart.

Yes I heard in an interview that he wants to play professional hockey.
- fiveandagame

*waits for Walshy/Canadacup*

Because you work at Walmart.
- A_SteamingLombardi

What does baseline mean anyways?

Games played is used because it actually not misleading. It is a well defined event not easily swayed by luck or other noise.

"Impact" is misleading because that is not a well defined variable. Is player A more impactful because he plays Defense and hits, or scores a lot of goals but doesn't backcheck?

If NHL coachs put you in 100 or more games it is a pretty valid assumption that the player is doing more good than bad or at the very least have the potential to. Injuries, Development and other factors all go into why a player may not reach that potential but getting in 100 games means that smart hockey people have continued to give that player a chance.
- belcherbd

No, it can mean a lot of things, is that 100 games spread out over 10 seasons? What's the baseline for considering games played to be an NHLer? There's thousands of fringe NHLers that eventually over their career accrue 100 games played eventually due to callups, injuries replacement, etc. That doesn't mean they're good draft picks. I think if the baseline was 100 games played in the NHL in under 3 seasons (so minimum 33 or so games a season) would be a much better indicator.

What does baseline mean anyways?
- CanuckDon

That's the line from home plate to 1st base

If those players were all sold at their peak value the Canucks wouldn't have made the finals and there would have been absolute bedlam in here ....sometimes you have to be loyal to players and can't just treat them all as separate stocks on the stock market ...some will be at their peak at different times and who would want to sign with a team of all they do is trade players once they peak
- Redmile247

You need to read the comment in context. Striker talked about selling those assets in the last few years, after the cup run when it was apparent the team needed to retool again... That was the point.

I said "replacement level or better."

How am I not understanding that this is the baseline? Should I use a larger font? My only point is I would like to know what % of players picked in rounds 2-7 are "impact players." You seem to think 100 games is a good indicator and I disagree. I have read your explanation and I still disagree
- CanuckDon

Define Impact.

Rounds 2-7 ??


That is a pretty big sample.

Using Cullen results over the past 10 years , 16 % of player selected from 31-35 have gone on to be top 9 forwards or top 6 D.

No, it can mean a lot of things, is that 100 games spread out over 10 seasons? What's the baseline for considering games played to be an NHLer? There's thousands of fringe NHLers that eventually over their career accrue 100 games played eventually due to callups, injuries replacement, etc. That doesn't mean they're good draft picks. I think if the baseline was 100 games played in the NHL in under 3 seasons (so minimum 33 or so games a season) would be a much better indicator.
- DariusKnight

Nolan Baumgartner, 143 games in 10 NHL seasons, but he was a 1st round pick.

Define Impact.

Rounds 2-7 ??


That is a pretty big sample.

Using Cullen results over the past 10 years , 16 % of player selected from 31-35 have gone on to be top 9 forwards or top 6 D.
- belcherbd

You can't understand my posts. perhaps I need to write more clearly. I would be interested to know what % of the time a 2nd round pick has an "impact." What % a 3rd round pick has an "impact." etc etc.

The info regarding a top 9 forward/ top 6 D provide a lot more insight than the 100 games benchmark in my opinion.

To extrapolate, 16 % of the time the Canucks pick at 33rd overall would be an impact player. I think top 9 forward or top 6 Dman is an "impact player." For the record, I am not saying I don't like 2nd round picks

No, it can mean a lot of things, is that 100 games spread out over 10 seasons? What's the baseline for considering games played to be an NHLer? There's thousands of fringe NHLers that eventually over their career accrue 100 games played eventually due to callups, injuries replacement, etc. That doesn't mean they're good draft picks. I think if the baseline was 100 games played in the NHL in under 3 seasons (so minimum 33 or so games a season) would be a much better indicator.
- DariusKnight

I agree that 100 games over 3 season period would be a better indicator.

I don't understand what the hang up is with 100 games though. Many of these players will of played many more than 100 games. 100 is essentially 0 and is used to filter out the players who never had any chance at all of becoming an NHLer.

The guys who only got in 100 games over 10 years are likely a very small % of the players represented. Most players who get 100 games continue to show that they have something worth giving them a chance.

You can't understand my posts. perhaps I need to write more clearly. I would be interested to know what % of the time a 2nd round pick has an "impact." What % a 3rd round pick has an "impact." etc etc.

The info regarding a top 9 forward/ top 6 D provide a lot more insight than the 100 games benchmark in my opinion.
- CanuckDon

As I said before define "impact", not the meaning of the word , but what qualifies as impact for that 2nd or 3rd round player?